Letters to the Editor - April 26, 2013

Related Articles

Comments

Don Dix

Scott Gibson is correct. School districts are losing fine young teachers to the budget crunch that is PERS. District 40 is beginning the bargaining process for next year, and based on the early requests from the union, it doesn't look good for the students, again!

So just how much does District 40 pay the average teacher. According to those quite familiar, the average salary in this district is $58,000 -- for a work year of 180 days (+ or -). That's $300+ for 5 hours of student face-time per day (and there are several days students are not in the classrooms).By comparison, a normal work year is about 240 - 250 days per year.

Now add the bennys. The average benefit package in District 40 is $33,500 per year (58% of salary)! So an average teacher receives $91,500 in total compensation per year. If that seems extravagant, frankly, it is.

But that's not the end of it. The union representing the teachers wants more. Pay and step raises, more and better health coverage, and of course a retirement boost are also on the menu.

After expenses, the students only receive about 8 to 10 cents of every school district dollar, and it appears that number will diminish (if the union has it's way).

And lest we not forget the union's cry every time they pick a fight over money, "It's for the kids". That's about the hottest, steaming pile ever produced!

08:30 am - Fri, April 26 2013

kona

Thank you for your comments Scott. It is unnerving that politicians are playing games with Oregon's future. The Oregon Democratic Party is attempting to serve their special interest provider (the unions) at the expense of Oregon students,

05:15 pm - Fri, April 26 2013

happy slap

"Take delight in a child's soul"

Kris Bledsoe asks ..."How can we protect our children from those who would prey upon their vulnerabilities?"

Mandatory polygraph examinations to weed-out pedophile school teachers would be a start, Kris.

06:13 am - Sat, April 27 2013

troy prouty

There should be no union in government positions.

troy*

02:57 pm - Sat, April 27 2013

Seabiscuit

As much as I hate unions, I suppose the unions would be OK if the employees want them. However, all public employee unions should bound by binding arbitration with no strikes allowed!

07:34 pm - Sat, April 27 2013

E.J. Farrar

Why stop there, Happy? Why not have all of us take polygraph tests? We have nothing to hide, right?

09:20 am - Sun, April 28 2013

happy slap

E.J., there are more than a few government employment positions that require 'passing' such an exam. One would think that the nature of the beast being what it is, and that people in positions of such intimate .ie teaching and/or coaching staff seem to be 'coming out' ..or.. making the news over sexual acts with children so often, that polygraph exams would seem only logical.

Are you in disagreement, if so, why?

As an aside, I'd recently read (I believe it was an Oregonian article) that Oregon government public employees have special protections in place to make/keep their PERS accounts from being accessed through any court judgements that might be handed down, should a Public employee .ie teacher, be found guilty of raping children.

I think that's just plain old fashioned wrong, don't you, E.J.?

09:53 am - Sun, April 28 2013

happy slap

So, one might also wonder as to just how many teachers had to raise their hands in a vote of solidarity to have that 'bit-o-minutia' written into their contracts?

Are you a teacher, E.R. Farrar, and if so, how happy with that are you?

10:13 am - Sun, April 28 2013

Lulu

I'd love to be a fly on the wall as you explain your sweet rationale to the families of the dead and maimed at the Boston Marathon. See the soul within the monster? If a rabid dog staggers toward you on the street, do you envision the adorable puppy he must have been once upon a time? Do you lean down to pet him? When he bites your cheek off, do you offer him the other?These killing machine monsters had a great deal of fun following their actions and did a lot of LOL-ing.Your argument is not about anything more convincing than the opportunity to glorify YOU.

10:55 am - Sun, April 28 2013

troy prouty

Most countries spend 40%of administration and 60% goes to teachers.

in the U.S. it's just the opposite.

troy*

11:15 am - Sun, April 28 2013

kona

troy, I don't understand your comment. Could you explain?

11:23 am - Sun, April 28 2013

E.J. Farrar

Happy, if your position is the protection of children is paramount to our Constitutional rights then you would want to extend polygraphing to anyone in regular contact with children: parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles (who are the more common perpetrators of child abuse of all kinds). And no, I'm not a teacher.

11:45 am - Sun, April 28 2013

happy slap

E.J.,

No, I wouldn't advocate that every person in America that has, or would have regular contact with children be asked to waive the 4th amendment rights, that would be absurd to suggest so.That is unless they were to seek, or wish to continue working in positions of direct authority over children.

And yes, I would include those wishing seeking employment, or those currently issued licenses to work in or conduct such private business in the State of Oregon.

I mean what the heck, if people can be required to submit to drug testing to gain or keep their jobs, I would think that screening-out the pedophiles would be just as important. Perhaps there would be less people producing dirty U.A's if there were less kids having their ability to trust lost to pedophiles robbing them of that so very important human quality.

12:26 pm - Sun, April 28 2013

happy slap

And yes, I'll agree, there is no doubt that there are teachers that are pedophiles that are also most likely a parent, grandparent,, if not an aunt, uncle, older or younger brother or sister, outside of the school environment.

As for monsters and their apologists, I agree with Lulu.

12:52 pm - Sun, April 28 2013

E.J. Farrar

Happ, are you trying to suggest that parents' and adult extended family members don't have authority over children? That may be true in California, but not here. I'm afraid I'm not following your logic. I'm out.

02:58 pm - Sun, April 28 2013

happy slap

I didn't suggest anything of the kind.

05:39 pm - Sun, April 28 2013

happy slap

All that I am suggesting, is, that those seeking work in such trusted positions undergo somewhat more rigorous testing for certain undesirable proclivities.

That's all that I am suggesting, E.R.

06:01 pm - Sun, April 28 2013

troy prouty

When you talk about unions and their pull from the board of education. for example... We have this problem in the U.S.. with grades 1-12.

some of this I will discuss tonight. We spend 60% of all funding on lower education goes to administration while 40% goes elsewhere. In all the countries ahead of us that are developwed democracies. There adminstration cost average is 40%. So bascially I'm saying those at the top are more compensated probably then they need to be. The balance is all wrong. Now .. from a teacher union stand point, I believe the Union stands in the way of having kids learn. for example the average is 223 days in most countries that are doing better than us. The top is 228. I believe. the union opposes more days of learning, even though you could use some as (home school). You also have schools with two shorter breaks instead of one larger. Once again - Unions has done nothing, to solve that issue.

Then their is a local bond issue. Wealthier areas vs Poor. There is some attempt by lawmakers (Jim) being one to attempt to at least balance that, but Unions once again have not stepped up to help very much in the process.

troy*

04:57 am - Mon, April 29 2013

David Bates

Unfortunately, these discussions over school funding are always tightly restricted to individual communities. As a consequence, everyone is distracted from the fact that there is a vast amount of wealth in this country for public education, between the amount held by the 1 percent and the U.S. government, which spends an insane amount of money on a global military infrastructure and, increasingly, a domestic spy and police state infrastructure.

The rest of us sit in our cities and towns ignoring this reality and instead, we fight over the pennies, and -- as a side distraction -- argue about whether unions have too many pennies. It's a debate that is safely confined to an ideological cul-de-sac, and so long as we do not radically change our perspective, that's where we'll stay.

08:17 am - Mon, April 29 2013

kona

Troy,

Where did you find your data ("We spend 60% of all funding on lower education goes to administration") ? In Oregon K-12 school districts the typical amount for administration is 7 percent of the budget and about 52-60 percent for teacher compensation. Naturally this varies from district to district, but it is not close to what you stated.

In Oregon, the compensation for K-12 teachers is among the highest in the U.S. while we have among the shortest school years in the U.S.

09:12 am - Mon, April 29 2013

Fletch

I'm trying to understand something. Are most of the folks commenting here are anti union or just anti teachers union....Why are unions wrong if so?

02:19 pm - Mon, April 29 2013

kona

Fletch, good question. The problem I have with many unions (not all) is that their primary concern is for the benefit of their members (that is what unions are for) regardless if their actions hurt their host organization (employers). Another way to look at it is production/efficiency are not nearly as important as the well-being of the membership. Unions promote the adversarial relationship rather than the desired common goal of efficiency in the workplace.

In education, the well-being of the students should trump the well-being of union members. That hasn't happened in Oregon and has fed the downward spiral of Oregon K-12.

I would be interested in your views.

02:47 pm - Mon, April 29 2013

Fletch

Well, maybe there should be requierments for the teachers students to hit state testing requierments in order for them to get full pay. (them meaning teachers) A state final exam at the end of each grade year to see the result of the skill set of the teacher. A patial payment so to speak with a retention of pay till results came in. Then, a final payment based on results.As a contractor, I have been held out on money till after all punchlist items have been handled or some other reason...I think that would get a better quality of teaching. If I was a teacher just putting in the time, not really caring about the student as these comments are implying, I might be inclined to step up my game to get my retention money. Maybe this already happens. I don't know...

Fletch

kona

Teacher's unions are opposed to the use of testing as any measurement of their performance. They would shut the Oregon school system down long before they would accept what you propose.

I do think that almost all teachers care about their students.

07:42 pm - Mon, April 29 2013

troy prouty

I'm taking the national average. Not Oregon's. Which btw. I don't believe it to be just 7% in Oregon, but I could probably find out that figure if you want me to research it.

But here is where I got those stats from - Howard Freeman went State to State and studied each states budget and where the money went and used it in his class, but also published a book about it. It contains more than education. Another way to track things is World Trade Organization, they do a good job of tracking certain things we may not think to look at.

I see education better if we look at it on a National Basis, because the only way it's going to be fixed is a national level. We need more school days (At least 223), we need two smaller breaks instead of one big one. We need to balance Equal amounts of money through each district and maybe even require extra staffing (not fewer) in poor areas so those that are first generation can get the help they need to learn.What is happening now is not working.,. We are falling behind the rest of the world, it shows in lower education,. but now it's starting to show up in higher education. If the President would have worked my health plan idea, instead of the Corporate give away he did, there was room in that plan to extend 2 years of community college funding out of it, so people could at least get 2 years of community college. Similar I suppose to the Netherlands

Troy*

04:39 am - Tue, April 30 2013

troy prouty

posted "I'm trying to understand something. Are most of the folks commenting here are anti union or just anti teachers union....Why are unions wrong if so?"

I think having Unions in Government are a bad idea. Because sometimes the Union goes against the people and the Government is suppose to work for the people.

Unions like Coporations that have consider pull through money, blackmail and bribes are hard to justify in my mind when they go to those extremes. Although I'm nor a fan of Bill Sizemore, one can look at the Unions impact on taking him down, or Tim Eyman (iniatives passed in Washington), tossed by Unions sueing (even though the majority voted for it)... This is when Unions become a problem.

troy*

04:44 am - Tue, April 30 2013

Fletch

Is it fair to say that unions are small goverments in themselves? Was this teachers union issue a hot topic before the banks robbed the world of their credit scores?Unions keep their members safe from one percenters who may be looking to get something for nothing. In return, unions are giving their customers qualified trained personal to keep their jobs at peek productivity. Does the teachers union have a apprentice program or any mandated classroom hours of their own to ensure they are maintaining optimum teaching techniques?Performance is what matters at the end of the day. Performance of the teachers and performance of the kids comming out into a world that expects performance out of a employee.

06:14 am - Tue, April 30 2013

kona

Fletch,

1) You asked, "Is it fair to say that unions are small governments in themselves?" Yes, depending on your definition of "government".

2) You said, "Unions keep their members safe from one percenters who may be looking to get something for nothing."

That one is difficult to understand.

3) You said, "In return, unions are giving their customers qualified trained personal to keep their jobs at peek productivity."

That is difficult to support. It is often felt that unionized work forces are a drag on productivity with their adversarial attitude.

4) You asked, "Does the teachers union have a apprentice program or any mandated classroom hours of their own to ensure they are maintaining optimum teaching techniques?"

No.

5) You said, "Performance is what matters at the end of the day."

I agree. Educational unions are against measuring performance in the evaluation of their work.

07:48 am - Tue, April 30 2013

kona

Troy,

This information might be helpful for you.

http://www.openbooksproject.org/OB_State_FinancialData.aspx

08:16 am - Tue, April 30 2013

kona

Troy,

I googled "Howard Freeman" and couldn't find anything. Do you have a link?

08:41 am - Tue, April 30 2013

Fletch

To me, there inlies a problem. No accountability. I have been the member of a union. Local 701 Operating engineers union. I had no feelings of job security from being a member. Either you could operate, or you were sent down to the hall. pretty simple really. I'm willing to bet, if the cost of health care wasn't so stupid advasarial attitudes might subside. On either side.What insurance does the districts have if there are no checks on results?

11:38 am - Tue, April 30 2013

kona

Fletch, it is not just health care. It is the whole compensation package. Right now it is the unaffordable retirement compensation (PERS) as mentioned in the letter by Scott Gibson.

12:00 pm - Tue, April 30 2013

Fletch

Why is it unaffordable? Why is the cost of PERS soaring "Ever upward?"

12:29 pm - Tue, April 30 2013

Fletch

Please keep in mind I am ignorant to these subjects and I am trying to fix my ignorance.

12:30 pm - Tue, April 30 2013

kona

Promises were made by public sector employees to all other public sector employees which were only affordable in an ever increasing economy. These promises were extravagant.

There are 28,901 PERS recipients receiving over $40,000 in PERS benefits. Over half (14,549) of these recipients are receiving more than 100 percent of their final salary. The kicker is that 2/3 of these recipients were employed less than 30 years.

If you are really interested, check out this website.

http://oregonstate.edu/senate/agen/reports/PERS0210.html

12:47 pm - Tue, April 30 2013

Fletch

Very Interesting Kona. One thing that stuck out at me was the campaign contrabutions to PUBLIC employees unions. Doesn't that mean BRIBES?Lets see if the deadline on the rainy day fund is met. Or, it just gets pushed back like the Feds do self imposed dead lines.I still did not find what exactly is driving up the cost of PERS. The article said the cost is going up reguardless of what the markets do.

02:52 pm - Tue, April 30 2013

Fletch

Also, am I understanding this correctly. There are 3 ways for the pension to be determined. If so, @ whos discression.

03:18 pm - Tue, April 30 2013

Fletch

Kona, by the way, if I am here I am interested.

03:29 pm - Tue, April 30 2013

troy prouty

opps sorry Howard Friedman.. wink.. It was early this morning. No it's in his book. asure of a Nation.. Kind of hard to keep track of all of them. I have read a ton of books over the last year.

posted "$40,000 in PERS benefits" and there are a few that make over that in one month. The Oregonian had a nice list of them.. mostly Athletic directors/coaches and... Doctors at OHSU.

troy*

06:18 pm - Tue, April 30 2013

kona

There are 880 different PERS recipients receiving more than $100,000 per year from PERS. And, out of the 880 recipients, 288 did not work more than 30 years of PERS service. And, of the 880 recipients, 716 of them are receiving over 100 percent of their final salary.

07:35 pm - Tue, April 30 2013

kona

Fletch,

The reason why the costs of PERS are going up is that there is an unfunded liability. In other words, right now PERS is not capable of paying the projected payouts to retirees. When we have that situation the public sector employers are obligated to make up the difference. That obligation comes right out of their budgets. When that happens, many teachers and other public sector employees lose their jobs, or have their hours cut.

07:42 pm - Tue, April 30 2013

Fletch

Thank you Kona for the insight. I have much to learn on the subject. Tough situation. It's unfortunate that people need more often then not, instant gratification. Why is the schools budget being bleed dry. when the state was shortchanging the rainy day fund, was there anything set in stone requiring x amount going to it?

12:05 pm - Wed, May 1 2013

kona

School budgets are being "bled dry" because costs are increasing from every direction. Oregon is in a squeeze. Oregon is ranked 33rd in per capita income so we are now a relatively poor state. Education costs, especially payroll costs, are ever increasing while the rest of the state is fighting a battle to maintain income growth. Still, historically Oregon has supported K-12 education very well. Oregon has spent more per student than more affluent Washington in about every year for the last threee decades.

01:03 pm - Wed, May 1 2013

Fletch

Well, when the unions are getting the blame for having adversarial attitudes, Major Oregon based corporations are getting tax breaks. from my point of view, lets square up the equality on income or excise tax and see where things shake out....

04:03 pm - Wed, May 1 2013

kona

I don't understand the connection, sorry.

05:16 pm - Wed, May 1 2013

happy slap

".... equality on income...."

Thought the Soviet Union tried that idea and the concept failed miserably, Fletch.

10:12 pm - Wed, May 1 2013

happy slap

When the farmer is no longer allowed to eat freely from his own field, whom then decides how much is not enough to keep the farmer farming?

06:05 am - Thu, May 2 2013

Fletch

Nike. Maybe it would be better if Large corps were taxed At a higher rate and the money went to help bail out PERS. Just a thought... Like I said, I have a lot to learn on these subjects and only throw thoughts out to help me with my understanding of how government works.http://itepnet.org/pdf/pb11ssf.pdfThe "Single Sales Factor."

12:48 pm - Thu, May 2 2013

kona

There is no connection between Nike and the PERS situation. Nike pays a tremendous amount of taxes now. The reason why PERS has a problem is their payouts to many PERS Tier I members is considerably more than PERS can afford. Why extend the problem to anyone else besides PERS?

03:16 pm - Thu, May 2 2013

Fletch

Where does PERS money derive from?

04:12 pm - Thu, May 2 2013

knowitall

For me, as a retired state employee, the unions did a good job. For the state of Oregon? Not so good. The unions don't give a fig about what is right and good for Oregon just their control over who wins elections to keep their power.

05:31 pm - Thu, May 2 2013

troy prouty

posted " Nike pays a tremendous amount of taxes now"

We don't know that. In fact they just did a tax deal with the state that the State refuses to disclose information about.

troy*

05:57 pm - Thu, May 2 2013

kona

Troy,

There has been considerable information made public about House Bill 4200. The primary focus was that Oregon would not change its existing laws that govern Nike.

At issue was the state's method of taxing multistate corporations. Oregon uses a "single-sales factor," which taxes profits on sales only within the state, not on worldwide sales, property or payroll.

"House Bill 4200 gives Kitzhaber authority to sign a similar contract with any company that promises to invest $150 million and create 500 new jobs. Nike's expansion will be at least that big, company officials said."

"Assuming Nike creates the required 500 jobs with an average wage of $100,000, the state would collect an additional $30 million a year in taxes, Warner said. The $150 million investment could mean an additional $2.25 million in property taxes, he said."

06:22 pm - Thu, May 2 2013

kona

Fletch,

Some of PERS money comes from employee contributions, more comes from public sector employer contributions and some comes from PERS investments. All in all it is not enough to support the "promises made by public sector employees to other public sector employees. That is why teachers and other public sector employees are losing jobs because the public sector budgets cannot pay for large contributions expected from them.

06:26 pm - Thu, May 2 2013

Fletch

The funds for public sector employer contributions derives from...

06:59 pm - Thu, May 2 2013

Fletch

I did read the link you posted twice Kona. The rainy day fund was neglected, Correct?

07:02 pm - Thu, May 2 2013

kona

Yes, this was the "rainy day fund" within PERS. It was part of the mismanagement of PERS. Keep in mind these comments were written in 2002. PERS has been a problem for a long time and getting worse.

"The Oregonian, using PERS financial records, reviewed how the PERS board has handled the system's rainy-day fund since 1995. The newspaper estimated what would have happened if the PERS board had not cut its savings targets and had fully funded the rainy-day fund."

"The result: The PERS shortfall would be at least $2 billion smaller today."

"When asked about the newspaper's analysis, Jim Voytko, PERS' current executive director, said that his agency has not performed a similar analysis.

"I'd say that the numbers you have are probably not that far off," Voytko said.

Estimates aside, what actually happened?

After two years of losses on Wall Street, PERS burned through its inadequate reserves and drove its rainy-day fund into the hole.

Of the system's total $8.5 billion shortfall, $2.3 billion is the rainy-day fund's red ink. The public has the luxury of years to close the system's overall shortfall.

But not so with the rainy-day fund.

The fund is supposed to help keep PERS stable. A little-known state law forbids PERS to carry a deficit in its reserve fund for more than five years."

http://oregonstate.edu/senate/agen/reports/PERS0210.html

09:29 pm - Thu, May 2 2013

kona

You asked, "The funds for public sector employer contributions derives from...?"

The answer, Oregon taxpayers.

09:31 pm - Thu, May 2 2013

troy prouty

The new coropration theme is blackmail to move or pay no to little taxes in hopes of passing taxes to others. The problem is that the wealth beign created is only at the top and they are finding ways to not pay taxes (similar to companies) at the level needed to maintain government. They try to push if only the "Poor" would pay... But guess what? They are poor. How much do you really think we are going to make from them?

We need Company reform in this country. That there is no doubt about. Import tax would be a good place to start. along with caps on size of a company, monopolies, and to some degree CEO salaries. I think something like Germany in that regard.

troy*

04:15 am - Fri, May 3 2013

kona

Troy,

There are over 80,000 corporations in just Oregon. You are throwing paint at the wall hoping something sticks. Your claims about corporations are no different than individuals who want tax breaks.

The Nike situation was entirely fair. They did not want to make major investments in Oregon and then have Oregon change their tax code for them. It would have been hundreds of $millions of additional taxes. Oregon hadn't considered the changes, but the agreement made the situation certain. Nothing wrong with that.

What form of business would you prefer if not for the corporate structure?

07:37 am - Fri, May 3 2013

Fletch

Which Oregon taxpayers? private or corporate or both?

04:39 pm - Fri, May 3 2013

Fletch

Are Oregon internet based retail corps. not having any structures in any other state on the SSF?

04:41 pm - Fri, May 3 2013

kona

Fletch,

Everyone, or organization paying into the State of Oregon General Fund. That is just about everyone/everything that pays taxes.

08:52 pm - Fri, May 3 2013

troy prouty

posted "What form of business would you prefer if not for the corporate structure?"

One that isn't using taxes to control a Monopoly, to keep the smaller business from increasing sales, have staff that makes a better wage.

when you allow a big company to have tax breaks you are basically giving the smaller company a middle finger. Telling them.. the must pay more than their share of taxes, which in turns keeps their salaries down.. Thus it allows no small business to grow at the rate it could, thus even creating an opportunity to sucked up from the larger company (because the smaller companie is tired of struggling)..

So why you think Nike is good for the area, and maybe in some areas it is. But it also counter productive in other areas, because it lower wages for those companies wishing to compete with Nike.

troy*

05:46 am - Sat, May 4 2013

troy prouty

further when you become to big to be convicted of crimes (Banking/finacial) industry there is a problem there.

troy*

05:48 am - Sat, May 4 2013

troy prouty

here is the deal. Adam Smith believed equal competition benefits the Capitalist system. There is nothing equal about one company paying taxes and one not. Don't believe me? Last year all Federal tax money received from companies and business totalled 7.9%. (Record low). Those that could pay (Wealthy) didn't pay. Those hit by Recession (hurting) didn't pay.. Leaving all the rest to pay.. This yeafr though it is expected to be about 12% or so.

John Rawls. Stepped it up a noch to talk about individual groups. That it was okay for one group to get more than the other, if they were all increasing. From 1947-1973. the biggest % in wages was those in poverty, followed by middle class then the wealthy. Soon though that reversed... Wealthy started getting the higher %.. followed by middle and then the poor. Today the only one's showing any gain are the wealthy. the other two groups show loss. Maybe that is why almost 50% of our population is not beneath the standard of living and why out of all the developed democracies in the world. We rank last in social economic mobility.

06:14 am - Sat, May 4 2013

troy prouty

If this works for you, that is fine, but it is not sustainable. We can either keep avoiding the problem, pretending they don't exist (so far we are doing a pretty good job) and fail. OR.. We can make decisions that are more accountable to the future of our country.

troy*

06:17 am - Sat, May 4 2013

Fletch

Amen Troy.

06:37 am - Sat, May 4 2013

WorkingforaLiving

There are far more things to worry about if you want to talk about unfairness and class warfare than corporations.

06:59 am - Sat, May 4 2013

troy prouty

When we speak of taxes, I think it is important to understand that the State and Federal are related. When a State falls short, the first place they turn is the Feds to help them. If The Feds fall short they look towards three areas. Borrowing, tax increases and cutting services. This is why it’s important to understand the link of tax increases in relation to those that don’t pay their share. Realize that most money is not created, but rather transferred from one source to another.

Therefore When companies like Boeing don’t pay any taxes (Federal) over the last 4 years. Two things are happening, you have a shortfall of money that you will now need to adjust something else in those three categories above and hope that Boeing is using that money saved to advance community at an equal base to up the stability of the economy overall, not just for one group of people (wealthy) trickle down affect. Of course there are also those companies that pay the taxes owed today over a 30 year period with no interest. I call this the GE rule created in 1954 I believe. The problem with no taxes coming in or the GE rule is that for example GE owes $1000.00 and takes 30 years to pay it at no interest and the U.S. borrows $1000.00 to make up the difference at 8% (which I base on how much of the current budget goes to interest). The U.S. is then is actually in the hole $1400.00 by the time GE pays. That obviously is unacceptable and not sustainable, so therefore services get cut and taxes go up to help to pay for the money borrowed, however there is a problem there as well. Lack of Social Economic mobility is leaving a nation full of poor people and people living beneath the standard of living. When that happens services are needed to increase, not be cut thus creating more money needed to be borrowed and it becomes a downfall of economic stability.

08:58 am - Sat, May 4 2013

troy prouty

Take me for example. I make less than I did in 2001. I make $80.00 less take home a month than I did last year, yet my rent, power and food etc. etc. all increased. Eventually this could lead into poverty. In 2001 I was middle income. 2013 below standard of living and hopefully not in poverty in 2014 or 2015 OR beyond for that matter.. Yet t I suppose it is possible. I’m not unique. Like stated earlier we have seen a huge spike in those beneath the standard of living and those in Poverty.

We can take it a step further to notice that last year we had the most millionaires not paying any taxes, their average salary 3.4 Million not goo thus creating more to the problem.

Then of course we have the Corporate “promise” Pfizer for example got a special tax break to bring money back from overseas, this they said would lead the way to hire 200 people. (According to Reuters) however reality set in.. Instead they laid off 300 people took the money saved on taxes and bought stock to increase the shares value and some CEO’s sold their shares for a higher

08:58 am - Sat, May 4 2013

troy prouty

The bottom line is no matter how much a company is pretending to be a good neighbor. Their interest is only to make a profit. They are not there to establish a relationship, which they often tend to attempt their reasoning for these deals. (Doing everyone a favor)… They couldn’t lie anymore…

We know this to be false from what has happened since 1973 in the percentage of the three groups of people and where the increases are and where they are not. We thus need to always ask ourselves is it worth it? Is it worth giving Verizon a 3.1 million dollar tax break per person they hire at the data center if they those working there can’t get a head and move the economy in the right direction? Is it worth giving Nike a tax break, if they outsource so much of their work overseas and keep a huge percentage of the money only among their top 10%?

Only you can answer that. My answer is no, it isn’t. I take the Netherland approach.. Where people maybe aren’t extremely rich, but nor are they extremely poor, thus creating more stability within an economic system. This doesn’t mean it is perfect, but rather something to think about.

You asked what system I prefer? Best Business structure? I would say a collective.

Equal profit sharing and company owned by the Employees.

Next I suppose, is if I had to give a system where the CEO’s salary is in line with employee’s per cap. Meaning that it can only be increased when the employees are also increased and be only so much % above the average company salary. (similar to Germany).

Troy*

08:59 am - Sat, May 4 2013

kona

You said, "Their (businesses) interest is only to make a profit. I almost agree with your statement. I do agree that the primary interest of business is to make a profit. Not much different that individuals. Businesses, as well as individuals, don't do well if they continually lose money.

p.s. Boeing paid over $700 million in taxes for 2012. They would be a valuable corporation even if they paid zero taxes.

p.s. Germany has many of the world's largest businesses.

11:31 am - Sat, May 4 2013

kona

You said, "You asked what system I prefer? Best Business structure? I would say a collective.

Equal profit sharing and company owned by the Employees."

Why would anyone want to risk capital forming a business if they had to share equally with employees who have not risked anything? That is why your suggestion almost never works.

12:11 pm - Sat, May 4 2013

Fletch

The passage of Measure 5 in 1990 transferred responsibility for school funding from local governments to the state general fund, which is highly dependent on volatile income taxes. Volatile because of corporate tax breaks.

12:24 pm - Sat, May 4 2013

troy prouty

posted "almost never works"

I haven't seen it ever fail. Show me example of it failing?

you might mean, it isn't used that much? At least here. some countries have it a little more.

Probably because those at the top want to keep all the money.

"Why would anyone want to risk capital forming a business if they had to share equally "

Everyone invest the same amount into it from the start as well. Those leaving simply sell their share for the next person to move into the spot.

you need to start thinking outside the line. for example, If I ask you how much an hour you make. you might give me a reponse of $13.00 an hour. (american response) how we were taught. I make so and so an hour. Yet.. not really.. It takes maybe an hour to get there, and hour to get home, it takes maybe an hour at lunch that you wouldn't be doing if you weren't working and you probably didn't add in gas, wear tear of car, oil change, clothing that you normally wouldn't wear but are required to purchase for dress code. by the time it is over you might make $8.00 an hour (if that)...

We were raised a certain way... Part of that is to stay within a box. kind of like voting Democrat and Republican.. to step out of that.. makes one weird.. But it also makes more progress in my opinion.

The old saying "A reasonable man adapts himself to the world, the unreasonable man pesist on adapting the world to himself, therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man" so.. true...

Living in a box, means just that.

troy*

01:00 pm - Sat, May 4 2013

kona

1) It isn't used that much because it doesn't work. If it worked it would be used everywhere.

2) You said, "Everyone invest the same amount into it from the start as well."

That happens all the time. It is called a corporation and those who invest are called shareholders. It works very well.

3) So why aren't you doing as you suggest?

01:37 pm - Sat, May 4 2013

troy prouty

posted "1) It isn't used that much because it doesn't work. If it worked it would be used everywhere."

No it isn't used that much, because those that investin the idea want more of the money without sharing. Remember where all the raises are occurring?

posted "That happens all the time. It is called a corporation and those who invest are called shareholders. It works very well."

No it isn't. shareholders aren't often have active in the company they own share's in. Meaning for example they aren't out there working the lines etc..etc.. The just get a % of the profit from the money they invest. VERY different.

what you will find in collective, is those that work, tend to work harder and tend to think a little more about the company, then someone for example that gets $8.00 an hour without an interest or stake in the business.

I would say probably the biggest reason you don't see it, is they like disparity of wealth it creates. It makes them "special", and in this Country it helps to have that status. We see it in justice to poltics, and "special" clubs.

"So why aren't you doing as you suggest?"

Working on it, not super easy, because a lot of people are currently struggling. I've been eying Newport for the location.

troy*

01:49 pm - Sat, May 4 2013

kona

The closest thing you suggest is "profit sharing" which many corporations make available.

There are no tax barriers for people to form a business as you suggest is optimum. The obvious reason it doesn't happen very often is that it takes capital. Most people are not willing to risk the capital that they have to start a business. Most businesses fail within five years. How many people would like to get economically wiped out in less than five years?

02:25 pm - Sat, May 4 2013

troy prouty

Profit sharing is very close. Except you don't buy into it at the beginning. It comes with years of service before it kicks in.

post "Most people are not willing to risk the capital"

Most people don't have capital.. 10% owns 80% of all assets in the U.S. Most of what people are living on is some form of loan requiring interest to those 10% in one form or another.

troy*

02:50 pm - Sat, May 4 2013

kona

Yes, it generally takes money to make money. Nothing new there. Those without money should appreciate that there are those willing to risk their money to provide jobs.

02:54 pm - Sat, May 4 2013

troy prouty

post "Those without money should appreciate that there are those willing to risk their money to provide jobs."

wow...

I suppose it depends. but I hate to tell you this. Those that create business are lucky that people want to work for the wages they get.

Let's just say we totally disagree. I hope it works out for you. I know it won't, but what the hay... Good Luck with it.

troy*

02:59 pm - Sat, May 4 2013

kona

You said, "Those that create business are lucky that people want to work for the wages they get."

I totally agree. It is a symbiotic relationship (mutualism) that is very important in commerce.

07:09 pm - Sat, May 4 2013

troy prouty

or desperation. The biggest form of Oppresion takes place in the workplace.

What you seem to not understand, is if it works so well. Why is almost 50% of our population living beneath the standard of living, or why is the disparity of wealth so great?

The one thing you can never escape is consequence. Remember that.

Next month maybe I will introduce you to a more radical approach still. Community Dollars, so I can hear you state it doesn't matter because it's not approved by government. wink..

troy*

06:10 am - Sun, May 5 2013

kona

1) You asked, "Why is almost 50% of our population living beneath the standard of living".

It is all in the definition of "standard of living". Our lowest standard of living is better than 90 percent of the world's population. In the U.S. a low standard of living still puts a TV in the house, food on the table, access to medical care and seemingly a mobile phone in every teenagers hand. Yes, there are the very poor, but compared to many other countries, our very poor live like kings and queens.

2) You asked, "why is the disparity of wealth so great?"

It has never been easier for the intelligent, hard working, economically aggressive people of the world to "make money". The keys are "intelligent, hard working, great attitude and aggressive". It has never been easier in the U.S. to maintain a low standard of living. There are cushions in the U.S. that have never been as available in previous generations.

3) You said, "The one thing you can never escape is consequence."

I totally agree. There are consequences for almost every action, or lack of action. That is a lesson that is easily ignored. It is a lesson that bypasses most people in their growing years. "Consequences" is a topic that are difficult to teach beforehand. Most people learn that lesson in hindsight.

4) "Community Dollars". We have more "Community Dollars" than ever in the history of the world. So much so that many segments of the population are totally dependent on "Community Dollars". That is why our federal government continually prints. Eventually "Community Dollars" will run short as is starting to happen now.

08:05 am - Sun, May 5 2013

troy prouty

posted "It has never been easier for the intelligent, hard working, economically aggressive people of the world to "make money"

Wow you are walking around blind without a cane it appears. How do you explain that we have less (Dead last) economic social mobility than any other developed democracy in the world?

posted "It is all in the definition of "standard of living". "

Really. I hate to point this out. But you tend to compare third world countries to ours is a mute point. try someone a little more developed. "yes" only 8% of the worlds population own cars. not sure what ours is.. but more than likely the majority are paying loans off for it.

Take min wage... some wages in others coutry start at standard of living, not 200% below (like ours). I would say it's all about self intent. that many Nations a job is seen as a giving to community, where in the U.S. it is seen has getting ahead in a more selfish way.

I think you assume we are doing better than we are, because we are able to charge and buy things. That is not wealth, that is debt. big difference. Remember I said that 10% control 80%. That means most Americans have no capital or Little Capital. It means that most of what they have is debt to someone or soemething else and that can't last forever.

troy*

08:55 am - Sun, May 5 2013

troy prouty

Also you failed to address the issue that the % for low and middle income is going down, not up and not even. The only one's showing progression of any sort is the wealthy, so that also conflicts with your "Standard of Living idea". Unless you felt everyone else was wealthy to begin with, and I suppose if you want to compare it to the worst of the third world, maybe...

troy*

09:06 am - Sun, May 5 2013

troy prouty

Since you are into education.

Can you explain why the best students in lower income areas have the same results as the the worst students in the higher income areas. Or pells Grants once covered 75%, now covers at 33% 9hint part of the answer is below)... Or how someone with no money (No social economic mobility) is going to be able to afford a higher education (increased the same as healthcare) in order to better themselves in order to get out of the trap of "No economic social mobility"?

how do you see that fitting your business model and fueling our economy to a point of stablity, or is it going to have to change, somewhere?

troy*

09:13 am - Sun, May 5 2013

kona

I don't need "a cane".1) You said, "How do you explain that we have less (Dead last) economic social mobility than any other developed democracy in the world?"Which is it? "The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer". That is "economic social mobility". Are you suggesting that there is little change in "economic social mobility", or is there significant change in "economic social mobility"?2) "Really"? OK, define "standard of living" for me. Usually it can be defined in several different ways depending on a particular person's point of view. For a teenager, a low standard of living is having to do without a cell phone (not just a cell phone, but a smart phone).3) You said, "Take min wage... some wages in others country start at standard of living, not 200% below (like ours). I would say it's all about self intent. that many Nations a job is seen as a giving to community, where in the U.S. it is seen has getting ahead in a more selfish way."I don't understand that except "standard of living" is in the eyes of the beholder. No real meaning for the term. The term is like jello ... difficult to grab.4) You said, "I think you assume we are doing better than we are, because we are able to charge and buy things."Absolutely not. We are having an artificial economic "high" that is built primarily on debt and for many, government subsidies. 5) You said, "Remember I said that 10% control 80%. That means most Americans have no capital or Little Capital."I don't believe that "10% control 80% (what happened to the other 10%)". I certainly don't feel "controlled" by anyone.

09:28 am - Sun, May 5 2013

kona

Sorry, the this got messed by the website.

09:33 am - Sun, May 5 2013

kona

How do you think people become wealthy?

09:36 am - Sun, May 5 2013

troy prouty

Social economic mobility is for example being able to move from one group to another. The idea of course was the American dream used for the base of rags to riches. We do it less than anyone in developed democracies. Basically that means when born poor, you die poor in the U.S. when born Rich, you die rich.

It's not rocket science.

Standard of Living to me means able to not go into debt and produce capital in order to sustain the economy.

"selfish way". Well it's sort of like this. In other Countries more people are content with starting a smaller company in order to support their needs just enough and help others do the same through employment. In the U.S. it appears that the main reason people start many of the business is for wealth and control to some extent.

posted "I don't believe that "10% control 80% "

I said 10% own 80% of all wealth. With Wealth comes power. don't believe me? Did you choose the President, or did you pick from a list given at election?

kona

2) You asked, "Can you explain why the best students in lower income areas have the same results as the the worst students in the higher income areas."

What kind of "results" are you referring?

3) You asked, "Or pells Grants once covered 75%, now covers at 33%?

Don't know, probably not enough free money.

4) You asked, "Or how someone with no money (No social economic mobility) is going to be able to afford a higher education (increased the same as healthcare) in order to better themselves in order to get out of the trap of "No economic social mobility"?

Hard work, no children until affordable. Access to self improving information has never been more available if a person really wants it.

5) You asked, "how do you see that fitting your business model and fueling our economy to a point of stability, or is it going to have to change, somewhere?

"My business model", I am not sure what you mean by that but I'll give it a try. Self reliance is a lost characteristic for an increasing part of the American society. It is too easy for some to accept more than they give. Each person has to decide what they want in life and take the necessary steps to get it. That is the part education plays in a successful life.

09:49 am - Sun, May 5 2013

troy prouty

posted "How do you think people become wealthy?"

Inherit it mostly, and make sure that the others are oppressed so they can't take what they have by keeping power through policies, investing and poltical action.. they do things like reduce taxes for themselves, cut services, and help direct policy that increase cost for things that the poor and middle income people would have to work twice as hard to get. Education being one. ... Anymore questions?

what you appear to not acknowledge (not sure why). Is in a society based on Capitalism, who is favored? Those with Capital of course. Therefore... Policies tend to go the direction of those it favors and often that increase the wealth or maintains it, or controls the lack of it within certain groups.. Once again, this isn't something difficult to understand. If I have $100.00 I can go shop for food, if I don't. I have to rely on someone else to feed me, and that gives those who feed an advantage. They can either feed me each time, Not feed and let me starve or teach me to get the $100.00 so we won't have to rely on them, having someone to rely on you make's one very powerful..

Eric Holder when asked at a recent hearing howcome during the banking scandal there was nobody being convicted or charged. He responded that he felt doing so would cause instability in the marker because of the power of the people he would have to charge. Now that is power, wouldn't you agree?

troy*

troy*

09:56 am - Sun, May 5 2013

kona

1) You said, "Social economic mobility is for example being able to move from one group to another."

Yes, and it is up to the individual to make the move, not the government or anyone else.

2) You said, "Standard of Living to me means able to not go into debt and produce capital in order to sustain the economy."

That is in control of the individual.

3) You said, "In the U.S. it appears that the main reason people start many of the business is for wealth and control to some extent."

Yes, the purpose of business in every country is to produce profit. Any business without that primary reason is doomed to extinction and the employees and the employer lose.

09:56 am - Sun, May 5 2013

kona

1) You said, "Inherit it mostly, and make sure that the others are oppressed so they can't take what they have by keeping power through policies, investing and political action.. they do things like reduce taxes for themselves, cut services, and help direct policy that increase cost for things that the poor and middle income people would have to work twice as hard to get. Education being one."

That is an attitude that will lead nowhere.

2) You said, "Eric Holder when asked at a recent hearing howcome during the banking scandal there was nobody being convicted or charged. He responded that he felt doing so would cause instability in the marker because of the power of the people he would have to charge. Now that is power, wouldn't you agree?"

Could you give me a link to that quote. I don't believe it.

10:03 am - Sun, May 5 2013

troy prouty

posted "You asked, "Can you explain why the best students in lower income areas have the same results as the the worst students in the higher income areas.""

Advancing to College.

troy*

10:03 am - Sun, May 5 2013

troy prouty

posted "Could you give me a link to that quote. I don't believe it."

sure can't watched on CNN doing the hearings with the senate (Dept of Justice).. You will just have to take my word on it or email al Franklin he was there, along with several others. But I remember him the most because he only wanted to discuss cable tv.. lol...

posted "That is an attitude that will lead nowhere. "

not really before you can fix a problem, you need to know one exist.

troy*

10:12 am - Sun, May 5 2013

happy slap

I've counting and so far, apparently, there are 3 of us that chose to not go fishing today.